Hold this, Coburn

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

What Coburn's doing is fundamentally undemocratic.  There's no reason he should be able to force his idea of pork on the rest of the country.  Quite aside from whether or not earmarks ARE pork, I don't want Coburn having the ability to say what goes and what doesn't, especially when a majority of Congress is ready to pass a given bill.  

Really, he doesn't get to say what's right and what's wrong.  He gets one vote, just like the next guy, and that's it.

Correct, yet you forget every Senator has a right to put a "hold" on a bill.  This is an old practice in the Senate.  Perhaps no one else has used it so much as Dr. Coburn, but it's been done forever.

The difference is, it's only been in the last couple of years they have started idntifying who the "holdee" is.  I don't know if politics is why they have changed this or not.  I suspect since Coburn also pisses off a lot of GOP's it's politics and was targeted at him to hopefully ensure he'd be a one term Senator.  I think that was his idea in the first place.

It's been enlightening to look deeper into what Coburn has been doing.  Just because 2/3 of the Senate is for a bill does not mean all the other Senators are fully aware of what is in a bill, nor that they comprehend the entire piece of legislation.

I'm glad there is someone reviewing bills for redundancy in funding, mechanism, and bureaucracy.  It doesn't appear anyone else was looking so close.  He's also keeping an eye out on personal liberties.

The vet and bc bills are but two examples of bills marketed to attract a bloc of voters, look at how the name is marketed.  Without seeing the true wasteful nature of a bill or the harms in it, it's real easy for a Senator's challenger to create TV ads saying:

Senator blowhard voted against:

Veterans
Breast cancer research
The arts
Smart immigration policy
Banning baby eating


Etc. ad nauseum

If you don't mind a bunch of arrogant clowns playing games with your money then the status quo should be just fine.  Coburn is doing what he promised he would- he's shaking up an old, exclusive, and stodgy institution.  If it's slowing down legislation and making Senators think, that's a good thing.

Well that's the thing.  I don't agree that the Senate is a bunch of arrogant clowns playing games with my money. I think by and large that they are trying to get legitimate -- and perhaps even necessary -- work done. Coburn is abusing the mechanisms of parliamentary debate to influence the process way more than he should be allowed to.  I'm not sure how to stop him -- as you said, holds are legit parts of the process -- but I'm glad that Reid's giving it a shot.

This, by the way, is why what he's doing is so ideological.  All of this is predicated on the belief that our government is so deeply corrupt that it needs conservative mavericks like him to step in and whip it into shape.  That probably works for the libertarian wing of the Republican party, but from other parts of the spectrum (especially those parts that think the legislative process still has value) Coburn comes off as a straight up vigilante.

EDIT:  And as Rwarn says, he's picking his own pet targets rather than homing in on the elephant in the room, Iraq.

[FranklinTower]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

What Coburn's doing is fundamentally undemocratic.  There's no reason he should be able to force his idea of pork on the rest of the country.  Quite aside from whether or not earmarks ARE pork, I don't want Coburn having the ability to say what goes and what doesn't, especially when a majority of Congress is ready to pass a given bill.  

Really, he doesn't get to say what's right and what's wrong.  He gets one vote, just like the next guy, and that's it.

Correct, yet you forget every Senator has a right to put a "hold" on a bill.  This is an old practice in the Senate.  Perhaps no one else has used it so much as Dr. Coburn, but it's been done forever.

The difference is, it's only been in the last couple of years they have started idntifying who the "holdee" is.  I don't know if politics is why they have changed this or not.  I suspect since Coburn also pisses off a lot of GOP's it's politics and was targeted at him to hopefully ensure he'd be a one term Senator.  I think that was his idea in the first place.

It's been enlightening to look deeper into what Coburn has been doing.  Just because 2/3 of the Senate is for a bill does not mean all the other Senators are fully aware of what is in a bill, nor that they comprehend the entire piece of legislation.

I'm glad there is someone reviewing bills for redundancy in funding, mechanism, and bureaucracy.  It doesn't appear anyone else was looking so close.  He's also keeping an eye out on personal liberties.

The vet and bc bills are but two examples of bills marketed to attract a bloc of voters, look at how the name is marketed.  Without seeing the true wasteful nature of a bill or the harms in it, it's real easy for a Senator's challenger to create TV ads saying:

Senator blowhard voted against:

Veterans
Breast cancer research
The arts
Smart immigration policy
Banning baby eating


Etc. ad nauseum

If you don't mind a bunch of arrogant clowns playing games with your money then the status quo should be just fine.  Coburn is doing what he promised he would- he's shaking up an old, exclusive, and stodgy institution.  If it's slowing down legislation and making Senators think, that's a good thing.

Well that's the thing.  I don't agree that the Senate is a bunch of arrogant clowns playing games with my money. I think by and large that they are trying to get legitimate -- and perhaps even necessary -- work done. Coburn is abusing the mechanisms of parliamentary debate to influence the process way more than he should be allowed to.  I'm not sure how to stop him -- as you said, holds are legit parts of the process -- but I'm glad that Reid's giving it a shot.

This, by the way, is why what he's doing is so ideological.  All of this is predicated on the belief that our government is so deeply corrupt that it needs conservative mavericks like him to step in and whip it into shape.  That probably works for the libertarian wing of the Republican party, but from other parts of the spectrum (especially those parts that think the legislative process still has value) Coburn comes off as a straight up vigilante.

EDIT:  And as Rwarn says, he's picking his own pet targets rather than homing in on the elephant in the room, Iraq.

True!  He's a rodent, but he's such a big rodent that he's frightening all of the roaches out of the woodwork.  I had to go read what he's blocking, and he really is not blocking anything, he's just making the other senators vote directly on their pet projects, and they are unwilling to do that!

He's not just picking on the Dems, he's hitting the Repubes too.  He's forcing members on both sides to fess up to their garbage.  They still have all of the power to pass these bills, just without the hidden, and unrelated rotten fruit.  The fact that they are unwilling to pass a Veteran's bill without diverting millions of dollars to their lobbyists' pockets is the big story here.

I wish more Democrats would take a stand.  He's putting himself under fire and will probably give away his seat because of it, but he will leave a legacy that may be very hard to forget.  It's hard for us regular rubes to understand what's in these bills until someone shines the light and the roaches scatter.

If they feel so strong about these bills why won't they vote for them without the fat?  Or is it just the fat that they care about?  Is the bill just a vehicle to shovel crap?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by FranklinTower

True!  He's a rodent, but he's such a big rodent that he's frightening all of the roaches out of the woodwork.  I had to go read what he's blocking, and he really is not blocking anything, he's just making the other senators vote directly on their pet projects, and they are unwilling to do that!

He's not just picking on the Dems, he's hitting the Repubes too.  He's forcing members on both sides to fess up to their garbage.  They still have all of the power to pass these bills, just without the hidden, and unrelated rotten fruit.  The fact that they are unwilling to pass a Veteran's bill without diverting millions of dollars to their lobbyists' pockets is the big story here.

I wish more Democrats would take a stand.  He's putting himself under fire and will probably give away his seat because of it, but he will leave a legacy that may be very hard to forget.  It's hard for us regular rubes to understand what's in these bills until someone shines the light and the roaches scatter.

If they feel so strong about these bills why won't they vote for them without the fat?  Or is it just the fat that they care about?  Is the bill just a vehicle to shovel crap?

Oh, please.  There are no earmarks on the AIDs prevention bill, nor the breast cancer bill, nor the veteran's PTSD bill. 'Preciate the concern (or concern trolling), but that ain't the problem.

Coburn simply doesn't care.  He uses weak excuses and procedures to hold up important decisions. Lives hang in the balance and he doesn't care:

- With the AIDs prevention bill, Coburn put a hold on it because he doesn't like the proportion spent on prevention.  Tell me why someone would want to hold funding on this:

quote:
PEPFAR has saved the lives of more than 1.4 million men, women and children by providing them with antiretroviral treatment at more than 1,900 treatment sites worldwide.
• Nearly 6.7 million people affected by HIV, including more than 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children have received care through PEPFAR programs.
• An estimated 152,000 infants have been saved from HIV infections.
• PEPFAR has trained hundreds of thousands of people to provide counseling and testing services, care for orphans and vulnerable children and for people living with HIV.
• PEPFAR has supported outreach activities to more than 61.5 million people to help prevent sexual transmission of HIV.
Source: Catholic Relief Services

The breast cancer bill?  According to his staff, "We are already spending enough money on breast cancer."  Really?  500,000 women a year die from breast cancer.

The veteran's screening bill?  He speculates that your doctor can keep you from getting a handgun...nope, only the judicial system can do that.  the VA estimates 5,000 vets a year commit suicide.

These have nothing to do with pork.  They have everything to do with a freaking doctor who is blocking health care votes because he doesn't think that Africans, women, or vets, are worth the investment.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by FranklinTower

True!  He's a rodent, but he's such a big rodent that he's frightening all of the roaches out of the woodwork.  I had to go read what he's blocking, and he really is not blocking anything, he's just making the other senators vote directly on their pet projects, and they are unwilling to do that!

He's not just picking on the Dems, he's hitting the Repubes too.  He's forcing members on both sides to fess up to their garbage.  They still have all of the power to pass these bills, just without the hidden, and unrelated rotten fruit.  The fact that they are unwilling to pass a Veteran's bill without diverting millions of dollars to their lobbyists' pockets is the big story here.

I wish more Democrats would take a stand.  He's putting himself under fire and will probably give away his seat because of it, but he will leave a legacy that may be very hard to forget.  It's hard for us regular rubes to understand what's in these bills until someone shines the light and the roaches scatter.

If they feel so strong about these bills why won't they vote for them without the fat?  Or is it just the fat that they care about?  Is the bill just a vehicle to shovel crap?

Oh, please.  There are no earmarks on the AIDs prevention bill, nor the breast cancer bill, nor the veteran's PTSD bill. 'Preciate the concern (or concern trolling), but that ain't the problem.

Coburn simply doesn't care.  He uses weak excuses and procedures to hold up important decisions. Lives hang in the balance and he doesn't care:

- With the AIDs prevention bill, Coburn put a hold on it because he doesn't like the proportion spent on prevention.  Tell me why someone would want to hold funding on this:

quote:
PEPFAR has saved the lives of more than 1.4 million men, women and children by providing them with antiretroviral treatment at more than 1,900 treatment sites worldwide.
• Nearly 6.7 million people affected by HIV, including more than 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children have received care through PEPFAR programs.
• An estimated 152,000 infants have been saved from HIV infections.
• PEPFAR has trained hundreds of thousands of people to provide counseling and testing services, care for orphans and vulnerable children and for people living with HIV.
• PEPFAR has supported outreach activities to more than 61.5 million people to help prevent sexual transmission of HIV.
Source: Catholic Relief Services

The breast cancer bill?  According to his staff, "We are already spending enough money on breast cancer."  Really?  500,000 women a year die from breast cancer.

The veteran's screening bill?  He speculates that your doctor can keep you from getting a handgun...nope, only the judicial system can do that.  the VA estimates 5,000 vets a year commit suicide.

These have nothing to do with pork.  They have everything to do with a freaking doctor who is blocking health care votes because he doesn't think that Africans, women, or vets, are worth the investment.

Apparently you are allowing a personal bias against Coburn color your figures.  According to American Cancer Society data, less than 41,000 women die from breast cancer each year, new diagnoses, depending on the source is around 200K.  That would mean a survival rate of about 80%, yes?

All cancer- estimated new cases reported 2007: 1,444,920 deaths same period: 559,650.  Male deaths: 289,550. Female deaths: 270,100.  Number of deaths as a percent of new cases reported: 39%  19,000 more men die than women of cancer every year.


Breast cancer total of men and women- estimated new cases reported 2007: 180,510, deaths same period: 40,910.  Number of deaths as a percent of new cases reported: 23%

Esophogeal cancer- estimated new cases reported 2007: 15,560, deaths same period: 13,940, disproportionately strikes the male population.  Number of deaths as a percent of new cases reported: 90%

Pancreatic cancer- estimated new cases reported 2007: 37,170, deaths same period: 33,370, new cases and deaths fairly equal amongst men and women.  Number of deaths as a percent of new cases reported: 90%

Prostate cancer- new cases: 218,890, deaths: 27,050.  Affects exclusively men.  Number of deaths as a percent of new cases reported: 12%

Breast cancer accounts for 12% of all new cancer diagnoses, prostate accounts for 15%

Why not a prostate cancer bill? Hmmm?  Mortality rates are lower for prostate, but think of all the health care costs involved with treatment.  Maybe because that's not a swing vote group politicians are interested in wooing like homosexuals (AIDS) or women voters (BCX) who might tend to be a single issue voter, especially if an opponent can paint an incumbant as anti-gay or anti women's health.

Okay, on to the AIDS bill:

"We wanted to get this up and out, as the quicker we get this moving the more lives we're going to be saving," Biden said. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said that the $50 billion funding allocation surpasses the need and capacity of PEPFAR focus countries. "We're just pushing the gas pedal when it's already floored," he said. U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Mark Dybul, who administers PEPFAR, said the committee showed "fantastic bipartisan support."

"S.2731
Title: A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes."

Not just an AIDS bill, but sure would make someone sound anti-gay if they voted against it.  Tell me this bill isn't about visibility politics, Obama and McCain BOTH signed on as co-sponsors June 18, 2008.

Why did Coburn and six other Senators act to block this bill?  Don't count on Chicken Little for the truth, just hyperbole and minimal facts.  It's amazing what you can find when you seek facts and don't rely on op-ed for your news, like The Politico.  Instead of saying Coburn wanted less spent on prevention (it's difficult to legislate human behavior, folks) It could be said that he wanted more spent on treatment.  

http://www.natap.org/2008/newsUpdates/062408_02.htm

What is NATAP, you ask?  National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project.

"Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and six other Republican senators blocked the legislation in opposition to its cost and "mission creep" into health and development efforts. In addition, they sought language that would guarantee that 55% of PEPFAR funding goes toward treatment, including antiretroviral drugs (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 6/25). __

According to Reid, Democratic leaders reached an "agreement in principle" with Coburn and the six other senators. Under the agreement, "more than half" of PEPFAR funding would go to treatment, according to the AP/Google.com. The agreement requires that antiretrovirals used in PEPFAR programs be approved by FDA or another approved regulator agency. In addition, the agreement prevents PEPFAR funding for wealthier developing nations, such as China and Russia.__Reid said that with the agreement, the Senate "should be able" to pass the legislation "quickly and easily."

I don't think asking that more than 50% of the $50 bln in this bill go toward treatment of active cases was too much to ask.

CL, you got any more biased misinterpretations of Coburn's actions you'd like for me to tackle?  Not everything Coburn has held has been due to pork.  Some of it has to do with limiting government's invasion into your life and the reality that government isn't the perfect solution for every problem.  Liberals have squealed over provisions of the Patriot Act being invasive and limiting liberty, yet they ignore so many other bills which trample all over our liberties.  

I see you also chose to ignore the one vet in our group who did chime in who said depression-screening should not be mandatory for veterans.  The national rate for suicide is about 11 per 100,000.  Why not require this screening for every American since this is posed as some sort of solution just for vets?  Because it sounds better so say someone voted "for vets" than it does to say someone voted "against vets".

[mrhaskellok]

Great research!

My stance on any discussion about Coburn is simple... I want NO MORE BILLS.  I wouldn't care if we never passed another bill again.  The problem in our nation isn't a lack of money or law... it is the misplaced emphasis of our money and law.  Spend it locally and everyone would be happy.  Why?  Because you have more accountability and efficiency.   We truly don't need any more federal law... the states were giving the ability to write law based on the needs of it's people.  

So, whether or not you "like" the laws Coburn is blocking or not, just keep in mind that there really aren't very many we "need".  I wish there were 100 of them in there blocking every last one of them for a while.

Just my 2 cents.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


If you don't mind a bunch of arrogant clowns playing games with your money then the status quo should be just fine.  Coburn is doing what he promised he would- he's shaking up an old, exclusive, and stodgy institution.  If it's slowing down legislation and making Senators think, that's a good thing.

But Coburn ignores the massive amounts of money being wasted on the Iraq war.

For Coburn to pick nits but ignore the biggest money-waster of all is what I call selective outrage.

On that, he's no better than Bush.

Here is some insight:

"He said the risk of withdrawal is greater than the risk of remaining, and he praised the military personnel."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080221_1_a1_spanc13621

He says it might have been a mistake going into Iraq.  No ****, Tom!

FWIW, Coburn voted "nay", along with 14 other Senators, including Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama on this peach of a 2007 spending bill which included funds for the Iraq war:

Number:  H.R. 2206 (U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 )
Measure Title:  Making emergency supplemental appropriations and additional supplemental appropriations for agricultural and other emergency assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Uh oh, Obama voted against Katrina survivors, vets, and agriculture if you just follow this tiny summary above.  Tsk, tsk.

I bet he eats babies along with his Islamo-fascist buddies and racist mentors. [}:)]


Bill summary:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02206:@@@D&summ2=m&

Helps to check facts and really look at actions instead of relying Faux News commentators or moonbat liberal websites.

Coburn is not an enthusiastic supporter of this war.  He, like so many others, was for it before he was against it. [B)]

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Apparently you are allowing a personal bias against Coburn color your figures.  

Wrong.  "In 2005, breast cancer caused 502,000 deaths worldwide (7% of cancer deaths; almost 1% of all deaths)"  

quote:Why not a prostate cancer bill? Hmmm? Mortality rates are lower for prostate,

Quit answering your own questions.  Prostate IS easier, and further along.

quote:"We wanted to get this up and out, as the quicker we get this moving the more lives we're going to be saving," Biden said. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said that the $50 billion funding allocation surpasses the need and capacity of PEPFAR focus countries. "We're just pushing the gas pedal when it's already floored," he said. U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Mark Dybul, who administers PEPFAR, said the committee showed "fantastic bipartisan support."

 The fact that you highlight the second sentence rather than the first speaks volumes about you.  Perhaps the "lives we're going to be saving" is the motivator that gives this bill "fantastic bipartisan support".

quote:Don't count on Chicken Little for the truth, just hyperbole and minimal facts.

Bullsh*t.  The facts are the facts.  Coburn is an ineffective legislator because he has no ability to weigh benefits against costs.  The lives of these people are of no value to him; maybe that's learned behavior or maybe it's Asperger's.  Regardless, it takes a certain kind of soullessness to sacrifice lives for nickels.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Apparently you are allowing a personal bias against Coburn color your figures.  

Wrong.  "In 2005, breast cancer caused 502,000 deaths worldwide (7% of cancer deaths; almost 1% of all deaths)"  

quote:Why not a prostate cancer bill? Hmmm? Mortality rates are lower for prostate,

Quit answering your own questions.  Prostate IS easier, and further along.

quote:"We wanted to get this up and out, as the quicker we get this moving the more lives we're going to be saving," Biden said. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said that the $50 billion funding allocation surpasses the need and capacity of PEPFAR focus countries. "We're just pushing the gas pedal when it's already floored," he said. U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator Mark Dybul, who administers PEPFAR, said the committee showed "fantastic bipartisan support."

 The fact that you highlight the second sentence rather than the first speaks volumes about you.  Perhaps the "lives we're going to be saving" is the motivator that gives this bill "fantastic bipartisan support".

quote:Don't count on Chicken Little for the truth, just hyperbole and minimal facts.

Bullsh*t.  The facts are the facts.  Coburn is an ineffective legislator because he has no ability to weigh benefits against costs.  The lives of these people are of no value to him; maybe that's learned behavior or maybe it's Asperger's.  Regardless, it takes a certain kind of soullessness to sacrifice lives for nickels.

Oh, WORLD-WIDE stats, well thank you for the clarification, Mr. Little.  How about citing government stats or scholarly sites instead of "The Politico" or Wiki?  Using one of your sources, Wiki: almost one in three men die of prostate cancer in the UK.  Based on that, we don't put enough money into prostate cancer research in the U.S., right?  

Yes, I did highlight the second sentence.  What is hard to comprehend about "we are authorizing more money than needed" is confusing to you?  What makes fiscal sense about that?  What makes more sense, funding treatment for HIV-positive people or buying more condoms and printing more pamphlets to try and alter risky sex practice?   Pathos and hyperbole seem to appeal more to you than fact.

People like you don't want the U.S. to be the global police force (I'm not that nuts about the idea either), why are you expecting us to be the world's doctor?  How about shared cancer research funded in, by, and with other developed nations?  The EU has a great network of researchers, as does Asia.

NCI shepherds $5.8 bln per year in cancer research funding.  Please explain the point in diverting an additional $40mm a year through another gov't agency.  Why not through NCI?  Something smells mighty political about that.

Why don't you just come clean and give us an accurate statement:

"In my opinion, Tom Coburn is an ineffective legislator".

You keep mistaking your opinion for fact and use questionable op-eds and resources to make your opinion sound like fact.

How effective a legislator has Obama been?

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Didn't take part in any vote on the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy act of 2007.

Didn't vote on Increasing Taxes on Profits, Rescinding Certain Tax Deductions, and Increasing Tax Incentives for Alternative Energy Programs for Oil Companies.

Whole lot of NV's.  That's not what he's presently being paid for, yet millions seem prepared to vote for someone who doesn't have the courage to cast a vote on potentially divisive issues.  That's my opinion anyhow.  It's hard to be effective or an agent of change if you don't take action.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by mrhaskellok

Great research!

My stance on any discussion about Coburn is simple... I want NO MORE BILLS.  I wouldn't care if we never passed another bill again.  The problem in our nation isn't a lack of money or law... it is the misplaced emphasis of our money and law.  Spend it locally and everyone would be happy.  Why?  Because you have more accountability and efficiency.   We truly don't need any more federal law... the states were giving the ability to write law based on the needs of it's people.  

So, whether or not you "like" the laws Coburn is blocking or not, just keep in mind that there really aren't very many we "need".  I wish there were 100 of them in there blocking every last one of them for a while.

Just my 2 cents.

+++1

The only time the American People lose is when Congress is in session!



One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed (1886)


Talk is cheap – except when Congress does it. – Cullen Hightower


Being elected to Congress is regarded as being sent on a looting raid for one's friends. – George F. Will, Newsweek

And my personal Oklahoma favorite:

This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as we do when the baby gets hold of a hammer. – Will Rogers

[FOTD]

Doing a slow (Co)burn: 'Last week, we learned that Senate Majority Leader Reid would be collecting various bills "held" by Tom Coburn and combining them into one package - forcing Senate Republicans to either vote with the needs of their constituents on good legislation...or sacrifice themselves out of loyalty to one colleague's obstructionism. And since many of the bills were bipartisan, quite a few Republican Senators will find themselves in the awkward position of either voting for the legislation they introduced, or selling out their constituencies to play politics and vote with Coburn.'

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/24/112537/967
"If you want to oppose this package, you're opposing a lot of things, including things that most Americans believe overwhelmingly should be part of our law — to protect against child pornography, to deal with the drug problem in our country, to try to find runaway children, to prosecute those who are guilty of civil rights crimes," Durbin said.
...

"If you want to cast your vote against it, I'm sure there will be many people at home with a lot of questions," he said.


Duh, tom Tom....

While the devil opposes entitlements, there's got to be a better way to eliminate them. Perhaps, new leadership in the executive branch will help. But pour Tom Co BURN will find his place in the Senate just a notch below our other Reapiglican Senaturd.....

[Conan71]

Devil's always in the details, eh?  These bills are the biggest pile of election year horse **** anyone could possibly cobble together.  Durbin highlights "child porn" for which there is already multitudes of laws on the books which are enforced with vigor.

Vote against "Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian Management Act" or "Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act" and suddenly your opponent can call you "pro-kiddie porn".

How is it you still have not figured any of this out.  Beyond your liberal leanings, I really don't think you are that dense you can't see through Reid's little charade.

For those of you who didn't wish to read FOTD's link:

"Senator Thad Cochran - introduced - Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act (S. 999/HR 477)

Sen. Christopher S. Bond - introduced - Vision Care for Kids Act (HR 507/S. 1117)

Sen. Sam Brownback- introduced- Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act (S. 1810/HR 3112)

Sen Domenici, Pete V - introduced - Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act (S. 2304/HR 3992)

Sen Vitter, David - introduced - Enhancing the Effective Prosecution of Child Pornography (S. 2869/HR 4136)

Sen Lugar, Richard G. - introduced - Reconstruction and Stabilization Civilian Management Act (HR 1084/S. 613)

Sen Coleman, Norm - introduced - Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act (HR 1678/S. 840)

Sen Stevens, Ted - introduced - Ocean Exploration, Mapping & Research (HR 1834/HR 2400/S. 39)

Sen Snowe, Olympia J. - introduced - Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act (S. 950/HR 2342)

Sen Voinovich, George V. - introduced - Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008 (S. 496)"

[FOTD]

Conan. Who is Steven Fields as Conan666? And where's that Obama big eared avitar gone to?[}:)]

[akupetsky]

quote:Originally posted by mrhaskellok

Great research!

My stance on any discussion about Coburn is simple... I want NO MORE BILLS.  I wouldn't care if we never passed another bill again.  The problem in our nation isn't a lack of money or law... it is the misplaced emphasis of our money and law.  Spend it locally and everyone would be happy.  Why?  Because you have more accountability and efficiency.   We truly don't need any more federal law... the states were giving the ability to write law based on the needs of it's people.  

So, whether or not you "like" the laws Coburn is blocking or not, just keep in mind that there really aren't very many we "need".  I wish there were 100 of them in there blocking every last one of them for a while.

Just my 2 cents.

I think Coburn provides an important service by scrutinizing bills for waste; someone has to do this.  But, like this quote, you can go overboard when you pretend that everything is as simple as "less is better".  The fact is that sometimes it makes sense for us to pool our money on a national level to get the most for our money.  Another example - if most legislators believe that federal money is well-spent on subsidizing local or regional commuter train service in Tulsa due to environmental considerations, that would be something I would support.  However, I would support Coburn if he insisted that there be some sort of standard used to allocate resources to cities based on the greatest need.  I know that's not how the process works now, but it is good that people like Coburn are pushing for some change (even if he is pushing only on some issues).

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

Conan. Who is Steven Fields as Conan666? And where's that Obama big eared avitar gone to?[}:)]

I guess he's my evil alter-ego, dunno.  I feel like such a trend-setter.  [}:)]

There's also two other "71" posters as well now, godboko71 and michaelwayne71 or something like that.  "Far as I know, Lieutenant Dan, we are not related."

I like to change out the avatar every few months, I get bored easily.  I'm trying to find one of McCain with horns growing out of his forehead.  Might even have to put a Dead avatar up at some point.